Oppose I could imagine this card if the game was about starting a wiki from the ground-up, but the MP is already established here, and I think the game should reflect that. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 22:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it has been featured on the Main Page, but I really don't see if it would be realistic for a card to represent the player writing this page unless they were Jimbo, as this was probably the second page ever created. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 01:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nicky here--although the idea of a main page card is good, it seems a bit strange to be able to play, thus implying the creation, the main page. Maybe there's some other aspect of the game we could put this into? EWikistTalk15:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would be possible to have this work, but only if Jimbo! was pulled in the first round, and this was pulled in the second (or that same round). I just say, trash it. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 21:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
INAL, but Michael Jackson likely has intellectual property impediments. I bet either some company or his estate owns the rights to his name and likeness, and wouldn't be happy if his name and image (even if freely-licensed for copyright purposes) were used on a card. Antony–22 (talk ⁄ contribs) 04:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do mean a giant meteorite. I decided against having articles destroyed because that might be a little too harsh, but then again, it DOES cause massive damage. The articles could be maximally regressed (to Start-class) instead of just by two increments. VeryPunny
Well, I suppose it'd be fine for a tribute card if we see some more contributions from you, Pumpkin. Since you've only been with us a very short while so far it's hard to call you a significant contributor already. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More cards and comments, that's all you need to do. 24/7 26/7 and you're in, buddy. And you could probably with having that section below as your tribute, if you wanted. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 13:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But of course! Also...something really minor...and this goes for everyone, not just you: When editing, can y'all please try to select the edit link next to the card's title instead of the one that says "comments"? It would make it significantly easier for someone to find your comment that way. Just sayin'. Um.....ideas for randomization...I'll think about it and let you know if I come up with any Oh, oh, oh! you could spin the bot in the middle of the table, and whichever article the top of the card faces gets vandalized.... Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We might want to put some type of huge chevron at the top of the page... And what would we do if they don't have one? We would probably use this for more randomizations, because otherwise ONLY true collectors would have them. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 13:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chevron? Page? Huh? Oh, you mean at the top of the card? Sure, great idea! It could go in the "prereq" spot and point outwards from the card's central point of gravity. Heh, if they don't have a finished wooden surface or bot-spinning plate available, then that's just like not having counters. Of course, we wouldn't spin cards in the starter decks, just foil packs and expansion sets-- and they'd be less common. Besides, any finished wooden surface will serve the same purpose. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more along the lines of numbering the cards from left-to-right (or vise-versa) and rolling to see what number is out. If there are more than six, multiple rolls might be necessary. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 02:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with that is for a 170-card deck, there are very likely going to be many more articles in play than six. Even in a 100 card deck, six is just way too few. I would suggest using a d20 (twenty-sided die) for the roll, but not too many people have one... Take a leaf from Wizards of the Coast and give them out with the sets? Bananaclasic (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC) (And on a minorly related note, I was reminded just why the preview button is so handy.)[reply]
The issues with spinning a card are immense, though. First, the card would be more susceptible to damage, and that would be a major turn-off for many who enjoy collecting AND playing the game. Think about it: you're flicking the card with your fingernail to make it spin. Second, there isn't always a smooth wooden table to play on. I much more frequently end up using my mattress as place to play a TCG, and cards do not spin well on it. Think of trying to get something to spin on a wool coat, and you've got my mattress. Third, cards are not always set equidistant, and there is not always space to set them so. My mattress is a great example, again, as it isn't very large. Spinning something implies that there are more or less equal places for the arrow to point to. Have you ever played Spin the Bottle? We really need a reliable method of coming up with random numbers, or we ought to toss the idea of randomness out of the TCG altogether. Most TCG's generally don't use randomness anyway, or if they do, it's something small and only requiring a six-sided. No other TCG that I can think of or Google has ever used a method of generating numbers that would work the way we'd need it to work here, anyway. It's always been within a specific, defined range of numbers. Even if we do come up with a good way to generate random numbers, this card's use of it would be counter-intuitive and ought to be changed. Even if we do keep the original text, it wouldn't be quite so random. Strong Oppose.Bananaclasic (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could go back to sets of numbers. And no, I've never played Spin the Bottle, I don't do things off of my computer, especially those things that involve having a "life." —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 06:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Life is... well lets see. It says that Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.[3]
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.
Name of card: Obligatory cheese donation
Class: Wikipedia (bad)
Text: As long as this card is in play, you may not create or improve any articles until you have either improved or created an article relating to cheese.
Your first edit each turn must be applied to a cheese-related article.
"... until you have either improved or created an article relating to cheese." Meaning the first time one of those happens after the policy is played? I don't like that; it would then be useless at that point. How about "Only articles relating to cheese may be created or improved as long as this card is in play."? ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)06:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm...perhaps this is a good one to sleep on. It's an awkward sort of policy with undesirable text, but not necessarily undesirable results...and that sort of card needs some more thought before we decide on a barely-related rule. No sense in rushing it. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 06:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems great; I would say we need at least four cheese-cards, however. Should we have a set amount of article cards that we are going to use, or should we just figure all of that out once everyone runs out of ideas? ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)23:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably work on that during the phase where we select which cards will be in the starter decks and test them out-- which reminds me of something which I'll post on the talk page. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do need card synergies in this game, but (as has been mentioned before) there just aren't enough cheese-related articles out there to support this card. Perhaps we should change it to something else... (actually this gives me an idea for another card, see "BLP improvement drive" below.) Antony–22 (talk ⁄ contribs) 20:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.
Name of card: Noob
Class: Article (bad)
Text: Effect:Every time this creature edits an article, it gets a vandalism message on its talk page.
A few problems...what you've described sounds like a vandal, not an article. Also, we don't have talk pages in the game. Perhaps a better text instruction might read "Vandalizes one article per turn per player. Vandalism requires a player's attention to correct, so it would certainly keep players busy as long as it's in play. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary gives this definition for noob: (Internet slang, pejorative) A newb or newbie; refers to the idea that someone is new to a game, concept, or idea; implying a lack of experience. Also, in some areas the word noob can mean someone is obsessed with things. Take a look at the first four words after the parenthesis. Interesting argument you have, my good sir. :) ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)14:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The term "noob" likely originates from deliberately annoying leetspeakers falsely claiming to be new and ignorant of a game or forum's rules, saying things like "sry 1mma n00b d0n+ n0 da r00lz h33r", where "n00b" was intended to look like "newb". Folks eventually started referring to these leetspeakers as "n00bz" or "noobs", and today the term generally applies to anyone who appears to be deliberately annoying online or ingame. The game Runescape is the only exception I know of for the commonly accepted definition of "noob"-- in Runescape, "noob" is actually just a random insult people feel obligated to shout to any passers-by, and they don't even know the meaning of the word. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.
Note: This card would HAVE to include a witty quote that explains the joke... something along the lines of "Insertions like "CHRIS IS A HOMO" make up one of the largest percentages of vandalism. If we fail to include a quote that adequately explains the joke, it'll look discriminatory.
To be honest, I hate the card. Mainly, it's for three reasons: First, the picture is too big. It squishes everything down to the bottom. Second, I don't really like the picture; it doesn't seem as though it would work very well for this card. Third, the article title at the bottom needs to be a shortcut; that's what we are using, not full page titles. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)21:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the card completely until you change the link on it to "meta:GAY" so that the link will actually fit on the card (it amazes me that you didn't realize that one...) and so that people don't need to bother going through redirects. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)19:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, this card needs a major overhaul. Right now it just comes across as incredibly homophobic, and I fear that no matter how tasteful we try to be, people will get offended. The problem is that the page that this card refers to is incredibly sarcastic, in a way that is nearly impossible to get across in a card. If anything, I think "Wikipedia is not the place to publicly announce a friend's sexual orientation or proclivities." would be a much better quote, and changing the title to "Friend" of gays (with the scare quotes), and using an image that's clearly related to vandalizing Wikipedia, might be enough to salvage the card.
Provided we get permission from the publishers (which they might actually say yes just because it's good product placement). They might require we pay them a certain amount for each card printed with the title on it, but if it is low enough that the card can be printed and still make profit, it sounds great. That reminds me of something... I'll post it shortly on the talk page. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On hold until we hear back from Activision
I have an idea for another one...it's noot copyrighted...and it might work. I'm guessing that Activision simply left it...and to be completely I don't have high hopes for this one--CanvasHat 00:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Here--CanvasHat 00:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Request withdrawn#ifeq:Wikipedia||display: none;}}background-color: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-subtle, #c8ccd1); {{===Comments====
Provided we get permission from the publishers (which they might actually say yes just because it's good product placement). They might require we pay them a certain amount for each card printed with the title on it, but if it is low enough that the card can be printed and still make profit, it sounds great. That reminds me of something... I'll post it shortly on the talk page. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
left = margin:0.2em 0.5em 0.2em 0; width:{{===Comments====
Provided we get permission from the publishers (which they might actually say yes just because it's good product placement). They might require we pay them a certain amount for each card printed with the title on it, but if it is low enough that the card can be printed and still make profit, it sounds great. That reminds me of something... I'll post it shortly on the talk page. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn#if:|{{{width}}}|auto}}; float: left; clear: left
right = margin:0.2em 0 0.2em 0.5em; width:{{===Comments====
Provided we get permission from the publishers (which they might actually say yes just because it's good product placement). They might require we pay them a certain amount for each card printed with the title on it, but if it is low enough that the card can be printed and still make profit, it sounds great. That reminds me of something... I'll post it shortly on the talk page. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn#if:|{{{width}}}|auto}}; float: right; clear: right
none = margin:0.2em 0; width:{{===Comments====
Provided we get permission from the publishers (which they might actually say yes just because it's good product placement). They might require we pay them a certain amount for each card printed with the title on it, but if it is low enough that the card can be printed and still make profit, it sounds great. That reminds me of something... I'll post it shortly on the talk page. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
centre = margin:0.2em auto; width:{{===Comments====
Provided we get permission from the publishers (which they might actually say yes just because it's good product placement). They might require we pay them a certain amount for each card printed with the title on it, but if it is low enough that the card can be printed and still make profit, it sounds great. That reminds me of something... I'll post it shortly on the talk page. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn#if:|{{{width}}}|auto}}; clear: both
#default = margin: 0.2em auto auto; width:{{===Comments====
Provided we get permission from the publishers (which they might actually say yes just because it's good product placement). They might require we pay them a certain amount for each card printed with the title on it, but if it is low enough that the card can be printed and still make profit, it sounds great. That reminds me of something... I'll post it shortly on the talk page. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provided we get permission from the publishers (which they might actually say yes just because it's good product placement). They might require we pay them a certain amount for each card printed with the title on it, but if it is low enough that the card can be printed and still make profit, it sounds great. That reminds me of something... I'll post it shortly on the talk page. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn#if:|left|{{===Comments====
Provided we get permission from the publishers (which they might actually say yes just because it's good product placement). They might require we pay them a certain amount for each card printed with the title on it, but if it is low enough that the card can be printed and still make profit, it sounds great. That reminds me of something... I'll post it shortly on the talk page. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn#if:|center|left}}}}; {{===Comments====
Provided we get permission from the publishers (which they might actually say yes just because it's good product placement). They might require we pay them a certain amount for each card printed with the title on it, but if it is low enough that the card can be printed and still make profit, it sounds great. That reminds me of something... I'll post it shortly on the talk page. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn#if:|color: {{{fc}}};|}}" | <div style="display: inline; font-size: 115%; color: {{===Comments====
Provided we get permission from the publishers (which they might actually say yes just because it's good product placement). They might require we pay them a certain amount for each card printed with the title on it, but if it is low enough that the card can be printed and still make profit, it sounds great. That reminds me of something... I'll post it shortly on the talk page. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provided we get permission from the publishers (which they might actually say yes just because it's good product placement). They might require we pay them a certain amount for each card printed with the title on it, but if it is low enough that the card can be printed and still make profit, it sounds great. That reminds me of something... I'll post it shortly on the talk page. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provided we get permission from the publishers (which they might actually say yes just because it's good product placement). They might require we pay them a certain amount for each card printed with the title on it, but if it is low enough that the card can be printed and still make profit, it sounds great. That reminds me of something... I'll post it shortly on the talk page. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am totally opposed to wild cards, for the simple reason that in a TCG, I doubt anyone will be able to know what all fo the cards are (unless you are us, and you are designing them). This would make it unfair, because someone may know about a card that othes do not, and they would be able to use it when the other people would not. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um....that's a good question. I actually was thinking a couple weeks ago about opening up a product placement corner with this where companies would pay some amount to have their name and logo put on a card, and in doing so, they'd have to sign a contract allowing us to sell the said card. But this opens up a completely different avenue, if it's an option. A couple years ago I found a website where you can get free legal advice. I'll see if I can get an answer to your question, Nicky. I like the idea. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea of having companies pay to have something on a card. However, we must remember to not let anyone on; it needs to be an FA article, regardless of how much they pay (unless it is ≥five digits long to the left of the decimal point...). :P ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we do that route, Hi, it would be appropriate not to nominate companies and trademarks ourselves, even as tribute articles. Rather, we would send out an email to all eligible parties explaining the opportunity to sponsor us and have their trademark or organization placed on a card. Thereby, going that route would nullify Nicky's and Canvas's proposals (they'd just need to choose something else instead), as well as the Homer Simpson proposal. If that's okay with both Nicky and Canvas, I'm fine with it. Also, I've done a little research-- Viacom is the company to contact regarding SpongeBob. But let's decide whether to implement the voluntary sponsor strategy before contacting Viacom, as one outcome will affect whether SpongeBob would even qualify for a card. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should do that, and I am fine with having Canvas and Nicky picking different articles, as long as they are. More money for the WMF is a good thing, I believe. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)04:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about that, it's just that my idolatry hierarchy revolves around cartoons. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia)
I meant the conversation about using copyrighted things; as soon as we finish talking about how we should not use copyrighted things for our tribute cards, you suggest using Google for yours. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And with that, we can discuss on the talk page how we want to handle our featured sponsor opportunity. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)#ifeq:Wikipedia||display: none;}}background-color: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-subtle, #c8ccd1); {{===Comments====[reply]
Um....that's a good question. I actually was thinking a couple weeks ago about opening up a product placement corner with this where companies would pay some amount to have their name and logo put on a card, and in doing so, they'd have to sign a contract allowing us to sell the said card. But this opens up a completely different avenue, if it's an option. A couple years ago I found a website where you can get free legal advice. I'll see if I can get an answer to your question, Nicky. I like the idea. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea of having companies pay to have something on a card. However, we must remember to not let anyone on; it needs to be an FA article, regardless of how much they pay (unless it is ≥five digits long to the left of the decimal point...). :P ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we do that route, Hi, it would be appropriate not to nominate companies and trademarks ourselves, even as tribute articles. Rather, we would send out an email to all eligible parties explaining the opportunity to sponsor us and have their trademark or organization placed on a card. Thereby, going that route would nullify Nicky's and Canvas's proposals (they'd just need to choose something else instead), as well as the Homer Simpson proposal. If that's okay with both Nicky and Canvas, I'm fine with it. Also, I've done a little research-- Viacom is the company to contact regarding SpongeBob. But let's decide whether to implement the voluntary sponsor strategy before contacting Viacom, as one outcome will affect whether SpongeBob would even qualify for a card. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should do that, and I am fine with having Canvas and Nicky picking different articles, as long as they are. More money for the WMF is a good thing, I believe. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)04:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about that, it's just that my idolatry hierarchy revolves around cartoons. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia)
I meant the conversation about using copyrighted things; as soon as we finish talking about how we should not use copyrighted things for our tribute cards, you suggest using Google for yours. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um....that's a good question. I actually was thinking a couple weeks ago about opening up a product placement corner with this where companies would pay some amount to have their name and logo put on a card, and in doing so, they'd have to sign a contract allowing us to sell the said card. But this opens up a completely different avenue, if it's an option. A couple years ago I found a website where you can get free legal advice. I'll see if I can get an answer to your question, Nicky. I like the idea. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea of having companies pay to have something on a card. However, we must remember to not let anyone on; it needs to be an FA article, regardless of how much they pay (unless it is ≥five digits long to the left of the decimal point...). :P ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we do that route, Hi, it would be appropriate not to nominate companies and trademarks ourselves, even as tribute articles. Rather, we would send out an email to all eligible parties explaining the opportunity to sponsor us and have their trademark or organization placed on a card. Thereby, going that route would nullify Nicky's and Canvas's proposals (they'd just need to choose something else instead), as well as the Homer Simpson proposal. If that's okay with both Nicky and Canvas, I'm fine with it. Also, I've done a little research-- Viacom is the company to contact regarding SpongeBob. But let's decide whether to implement the voluntary sponsor strategy before contacting Viacom, as one outcome will affect whether SpongeBob would even qualify for a card. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should do that, and I am fine with having Canvas and Nicky picking different articles, as long as they are. More money for the WMF is a good thing, I believe. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)04:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about that, it's just that my idolatry hierarchy revolves around cartoons. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia)
I meant the conversation about using copyrighted things; as soon as we finish talking about how we should not use copyrighted things for our tribute cards, you suggest using Google for yours. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um....that's a good question. I actually was thinking a couple weeks ago about opening up a product placement corner with this where companies would pay some amount to have their name and logo put on a card, and in doing so, they'd have to sign a contract allowing us to sell the said card. But this opens up a completely different avenue, if it's an option. A couple years ago I found a website where you can get free legal advice. I'll see if I can get an answer to your question, Nicky. I like the idea. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea of having companies pay to have something on a card. However, we must remember to not let anyone on; it needs to be an FA article, regardless of how much they pay (unless it is ≥five digits long to the left of the decimal point...). :P ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we do that route, Hi, it would be appropriate not to nominate companies and trademarks ourselves, even as tribute articles. Rather, we would send out an email to all eligible parties explaining the opportunity to sponsor us and have their trademark or organization placed on a card. Thereby, going that route would nullify Nicky's and Canvas's proposals (they'd just need to choose something else instead), as well as the Homer Simpson proposal. If that's okay with both Nicky and Canvas, I'm fine with it. Also, I've done a little research-- Viacom is the company to contact regarding SpongeBob. But let's decide whether to implement the voluntary sponsor strategy before contacting Viacom, as one outcome will affect whether SpongeBob would even qualify for a card. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should do that, and I am fine with having Canvas and Nicky picking different articles, as long as they are. More money for the WMF is a good thing, I believe. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)04:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about that, it's just that my idolatry hierarchy revolves around cartoons. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia)
I meant the conversation about using copyrighted things; as soon as we finish talking about how we should not use copyrighted things for our tribute cards, you suggest using Google for yours. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um....that's a good question. I actually was thinking a couple weeks ago about opening up a product placement corner with this where companies would pay some amount to have their name and logo put on a card, and in doing so, they'd have to sign a contract allowing us to sell the said card. But this opens up a completely different avenue, if it's an option. A couple years ago I found a website where you can get free legal advice. I'll see if I can get an answer to your question, Nicky. I like the idea. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea of having companies pay to have something on a card. However, we must remember to not let anyone on; it needs to be an FA article, regardless of how much they pay (unless it is ≥five digits long to the left of the decimal point...). :P ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we do that route, Hi, it would be appropriate not to nominate companies and trademarks ourselves, even as tribute articles. Rather, we would send out an email to all eligible parties explaining the opportunity to sponsor us and have their trademark or organization placed on a card. Thereby, going that route would nullify Nicky's and Canvas's proposals (they'd just need to choose something else instead), as well as the Homer Simpson proposal. If that's okay with both Nicky and Canvas, I'm fine with it. Also, I've done a little research-- Viacom is the company to contact regarding SpongeBob. But let's decide whether to implement the voluntary sponsor strategy before contacting Viacom, as one outcome will affect whether SpongeBob would even qualify for a card. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should do that, and I am fine with having Canvas and Nicky picking different articles, as long as they are. More money for the WMF is a good thing, I believe. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)04:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about that, it's just that my idolatry hierarchy revolves around cartoons. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia)
I meant the conversation about using copyrighted things; as soon as we finish talking about how we should not use copyrighted things for our tribute cards, you suggest using Google for yours. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um....that's a good question. I actually was thinking a couple weeks ago about opening up a product placement corner with this where companies would pay some amount to have their name and logo put on a card, and in doing so, they'd have to sign a contract allowing us to sell the said card. But this opens up a completely different avenue, if it's an option. A couple years ago I found a website where you can get free legal advice. I'll see if I can get an answer to your question, Nicky. I like the idea. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea of having companies pay to have something on a card. However, we must remember to not let anyone on; it needs to be an FA article, regardless of how much they pay (unless it is ≥five digits long to the left of the decimal point...). :P ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we do that route, Hi, it would be appropriate not to nominate companies and trademarks ourselves, even as tribute articles. Rather, we would send out an email to all eligible parties explaining the opportunity to sponsor us and have their trademark or organization placed on a card. Thereby, going that route would nullify Nicky's and Canvas's proposals (they'd just need to choose something else instead), as well as the Homer Simpson proposal. If that's okay with both Nicky and Canvas, I'm fine with it. Also, I've done a little research-- Viacom is the company to contact regarding SpongeBob. But let's decide whether to implement the voluntary sponsor strategy before contacting Viacom, as one outcome will affect whether SpongeBob would even qualify for a card. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should do that, and I am fine with having Canvas and Nicky picking different articles, as long as they are. More money for the WMF is a good thing, I believe. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)04:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about that, it's just that my idolatry hierarchy revolves around cartoons. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia)
I meant the conversation about using copyrighted things; as soon as we finish talking about how we should not use copyrighted things for our tribute cards, you suggest using Google for yours. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um....that's a good question. I actually was thinking a couple weeks ago about opening up a product placement corner with this where companies would pay some amount to have their name and logo put on a card, and in doing so, they'd have to sign a contract allowing us to sell the said card. But this opens up a completely different avenue, if it's an option. A couple years ago I found a website where you can get free legal advice. I'll see if I can get an answer to your question, Nicky. I like the idea. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea of having companies pay to have something on a card. However, we must remember to not let anyone on; it needs to be an FA article, regardless of how much they pay (unless it is ≥five digits long to the left of the decimal point...). :P ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we do that route, Hi, it would be appropriate not to nominate companies and trademarks ourselves, even as tribute articles. Rather, we would send out an email to all eligible parties explaining the opportunity to sponsor us and have their trademark or organization placed on a card. Thereby, going that route would nullify Nicky's and Canvas's proposals (they'd just need to choose something else instead), as well as the Homer Simpson proposal. If that's okay with both Nicky and Canvas, I'm fine with it. Also, I've done a little research-- Viacom is the company to contact regarding SpongeBob. But let's decide whether to implement the voluntary sponsor strategy before contacting Viacom, as one outcome will affect whether SpongeBob would even qualify for a card. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should do that, and I am fine with having Canvas and Nicky picking different articles, as long as they are. More money for the WMF is a good thing, I believe. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)04:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about that, it's just that my idolatry hierarchy revolves around cartoons. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia)
I meant the conversation about using copyrighted things; as soon as we finish talking about how we should not use copyrighted things for our tribute cards, you suggest using Google for yours. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um....that's a good question. I actually was thinking a couple weeks ago about opening up a product placement corner with this where companies would pay some amount to have their name and logo put on a card, and in doing so, they'd have to sign a contract allowing us to sell the said card. But this opens up a completely different avenue, if it's an option. A couple years ago I found a website where you can get free legal advice. I'll see if I can get an answer to your question, Nicky. I like the idea. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea of having companies pay to have something on a card. However, we must remember to not let anyone on; it needs to be an FA article, regardless of how much they pay (unless it is ≥five digits long to the left of the decimal point...). :P ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we do that route, Hi, it would be appropriate not to nominate companies and trademarks ourselves, even as tribute articles. Rather, we would send out an email to all eligible parties explaining the opportunity to sponsor us and have their trademark or organization placed on a card. Thereby, going that route would nullify Nicky's and Canvas's proposals (they'd just need to choose something else instead), as well as the Homer Simpson proposal. If that's okay with both Nicky and Canvas, I'm fine with it. Also, I've done a little research-- Viacom is the company to contact regarding SpongeBob. But let's decide whether to implement the voluntary sponsor strategy before contacting Viacom, as one outcome will affect whether SpongeBob would even qualify for a card. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should do that, and I am fine with having Canvas and Nicky picking different articles, as long as they are. More money for the WMF is a good thing, I believe. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)04:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about that, it's just that my idolatry hierarchy revolves around cartoons. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia)
I meant the conversation about using copyrighted things; as soon as we finish talking about how we should not use copyrighted things for our tribute cards, you suggest using Google for yours. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um....that's a good question. I actually was thinking a couple weeks ago about opening up a product placement corner with this where companies would pay some amount to have their name and logo put on a card, and in doing so, they'd have to sign a contract allowing us to sell the said card. But this opens up a completely different avenue, if it's an option. A couple years ago I found a website where you can get free legal advice. I'll see if I can get an answer to your question, Nicky. I like the idea. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea of having companies pay to have something on a card. However, we must remember to not let anyone on; it needs to be an FA article, regardless of how much they pay (unless it is ≥five digits long to the left of the decimal point...). :P ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we do that route, Hi, it would be appropriate not to nominate companies and trademarks ourselves, even as tribute articles. Rather, we would send out an email to all eligible parties explaining the opportunity to sponsor us and have their trademark or organization placed on a card. Thereby, going that route would nullify Nicky's and Canvas's proposals (they'd just need to choose something else instead), as well as the Homer Simpson proposal. If that's okay with both Nicky and Canvas, I'm fine with it. Also, I've done a little research-- Viacom is the company to contact regarding SpongeBob. But let's decide whether to implement the voluntary sponsor strategy before contacting Viacom, as one outcome will affect whether SpongeBob would even qualify for a card. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should do that, and I am fine with having Canvas and Nicky picking different articles, as long as they are. More money for the WMF is a good thing, I believe. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)04:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about that, it's just that my idolatry hierarchy revolves around cartoons. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia)
I meant the conversation about using copyrighted things; as soon as we finish talking about how we should not use copyrighted things for our tribute cards, you suggest using Google for yours. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um....that's a good question. I actually was thinking a couple weeks ago about opening up a product placement corner with this where companies would pay some amount to have their name and logo put on a card, and in doing so, they'd have to sign a contract allowing us to sell the said card. But this opens up a completely different avenue, if it's an option. A couple years ago I found a website where you can get free legal advice. I'll see if I can get an answer to your question, Nicky. I like the idea. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea of having companies pay to have something on a card. However, we must remember to not let anyone on; it needs to be an FA article, regardless of how much they pay (unless it is ≥five digits long to the left of the decimal point...). :P ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we do that route, Hi, it would be appropriate not to nominate companies and trademarks ourselves, even as tribute articles. Rather, we would send out an email to all eligible parties explaining the opportunity to sponsor us and have their trademark or organization placed on a card. Thereby, going that route would nullify Nicky's and Canvas's proposals (they'd just need to choose something else instead), as well as the Homer Simpson proposal. If that's okay with both Nicky and Canvas, I'm fine with it. Also, I've done a little research-- Viacom is the company to contact regarding SpongeBob. But let's decide whether to implement the voluntary sponsor strategy before contacting Viacom, as one outcome will affect whether SpongeBob would even qualify for a card. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should do that, and I am fine with having Canvas and Nicky picking different articles, as long as they are. More money for the WMF is a good thing, I believe. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)04:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about that, it's just that my idolatry hierarchy revolves around cartoons. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia)
I meant the conversation about using copyrighted things; as soon as we finish talking about how we should not use copyrighted things for our tribute cards, you suggest using Google for yours. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And with that, we can discuss on the talk page how we want to handle our featured sponsor opportunity. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)#if:|color: {{{fc}}};|}}" | <div style="display: inline; font-size: 115%; color: {{===Comments====[reply]
Um....that's a good question. I actually was thinking a couple weeks ago about opening up a product placement corner with this where companies would pay some amount to have their name and logo put on a card, and in doing so, they'd have to sign a contract allowing us to sell the said card. But this opens up a completely different avenue, if it's an option. A couple years ago I found a website where you can get free legal advice. I'll see if I can get an answer to your question, Nicky. I like the idea. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea of having companies pay to have something on a card. However, we must remember to not let anyone on; it needs to be an FA article, regardless of how much they pay (unless it is ≥five digits long to the left of the decimal point...). :P ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we do that route, Hi, it would be appropriate not to nominate companies and trademarks ourselves, even as tribute articles. Rather, we would send out an email to all eligible parties explaining the opportunity to sponsor us and have their trademark or organization placed on a card. Thereby, going that route would nullify Nicky's and Canvas's proposals (they'd just need to choose something else instead), as well as the Homer Simpson proposal. If that's okay with both Nicky and Canvas, I'm fine with it. Also, I've done a little research-- Viacom is the company to contact regarding SpongeBob. But let's decide whether to implement the voluntary sponsor strategy before contacting Viacom, as one outcome will affect whether SpongeBob would even qualify for a card. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should do that, and I am fine with having Canvas and Nicky picking different articles, as long as they are. More money for the WMF is a good thing, I believe. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)04:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about that, it's just that my idolatry hierarchy revolves around cartoons. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia)
I meant the conversation about using copyrighted things; as soon as we finish talking about how we should not use copyrighted things for our tribute cards, you suggest using Google for yours. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um....that's a good question. I actually was thinking a couple weeks ago about opening up a product placement corner with this where companies would pay some amount to have their name and logo put on a card, and in doing so, they'd have to sign a contract allowing us to sell the said card. But this opens up a completely different avenue, if it's an option. A couple years ago I found a website where you can get free legal advice. I'll see if I can get an answer to your question, Nicky. I like the idea. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea of having companies pay to have something on a card. However, we must remember to not let anyone on; it needs to be an FA article, regardless of how much they pay (unless it is ≥five digits long to the left of the decimal point...). :P ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we do that route, Hi, it would be appropriate not to nominate companies and trademarks ourselves, even as tribute articles. Rather, we would send out an email to all eligible parties explaining the opportunity to sponsor us and have their trademark or organization placed on a card. Thereby, going that route would nullify Nicky's and Canvas's proposals (they'd just need to choose something else instead), as well as the Homer Simpson proposal. If that's okay with both Nicky and Canvas, I'm fine with it. Also, I've done a little research-- Viacom is the company to contact regarding SpongeBob. But let's decide whether to implement the voluntary sponsor strategy before contacting Viacom, as one outcome will affect whether SpongeBob would even qualify for a card. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should do that, and I am fine with having Canvas and Nicky picking different articles, as long as they are. More money for the WMF is a good thing, I believe. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)04:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about that, it's just that my idolatry hierarchy revolves around cartoons. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia)
I meant the conversation about using copyrighted things; as soon as we finish talking about how we should not use copyrighted things for our tribute cards, you suggest using Google for yours. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um....that's a good question. I actually was thinking a couple weeks ago about opening up a product placement corner with this where companies would pay some amount to have their name and logo put on a card, and in doing so, they'd have to sign a contract allowing us to sell the said card. But this opens up a completely different avenue, if it's an option. A couple years ago I found a website where you can get free legal advice. I'll see if I can get an answer to your question, Nicky. I like the idea. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea of having companies pay to have something on a card. However, we must remember to not let anyone on; it needs to be an FA article, regardless of how much they pay (unless it is ≥five digits long to the left of the decimal point...). :P ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we do that route, Hi, it would be appropriate not to nominate companies and trademarks ourselves, even as tribute articles. Rather, we would send out an email to all eligible parties explaining the opportunity to sponsor us and have their trademark or organization placed on a card. Thereby, going that route would nullify Nicky's and Canvas's proposals (they'd just need to choose something else instead), as well as the Homer Simpson proposal. If that's okay with both Nicky and Canvas, I'm fine with it. Also, I've done a little research-- Viacom is the company to contact regarding SpongeBob. But let's decide whether to implement the voluntary sponsor strategy before contacting Viacom, as one outcome will affect whether SpongeBob would even qualify for a card. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should do that, and I am fine with having Canvas and Nicky picking different articles, as long as they are. More money for the WMF is a good thing, I believe. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)04:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about that, it's just that my idolatry hierarchy revolves around cartoons. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia)
I meant the conversation about using copyrighted things; as soon as we finish talking about how we should not use copyrighted things for our tribute cards, you suggest using Google for yours. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)01:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be the first method we can try. We need permission from whoever holds the copyright on the Simpsons franchise. Make sure you make it explicitly clear that we are looking for permission to print a marketable trading card featuring the character for a game whose profits will be donated to the Wikimedia Foundation. Keep track of who all you talk to; we need to archive any permissions we receive. In fact, copy me at bobthewikipedian at gmail dot com when you email them; it'll make archival of permissions easy if they stay centralized. If they don't respond to an email, we'll have to call them or write them a letter. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for contacting you at this address, no "contact us" information or form seemed to be available on the fox web sites and this seemed the most applicable email address. I am working with the Wikipedia Trading Card Game committee and would like to create a card in honor of your show, the Simpsons. These cards are to be sold and the money given to the Wikimedia Foundation. We respectfully request explicit permission to use logos, images or other possible copyrighted materials relating to the Simpsons as a show to be printed on these cards for a commercial purpose.
Looks good to me. Not sure if it helps, but here's a copy of one I sent to Activision. It hasn't generated any response; not sure if they discarded the email as a joke or refused to answer, or whether it's really taking this long to respond, so not following my example might actually be a good idea:
Hello,
I am part of a team working on developing a trading card game based on Wikipedia to serve as a fundraising product for Wikimedia. We are considering including a trading card that features either a logo or screenshot from the video game Call of Duty: Black Ops. The inclusion of this trading card in the game would serve as excellent product placement with a projected audience being a small percentage of Wikipedia's countless editors.
Before we can include this card in the game, however, we would like to obtain permission to print this content on our cards. All profits beyond the cost of producing the game would be donated to Wikimedia Foundation.
Declined#ifeq:Wikipedia||display: none;}}background-color: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-subtle, #c8ccd1); {{===Comments====
All three are perfectly fine to me. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 22:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be the first method we can try. We need permission from whoever holds the copyright on the Simpsons franchise. Make sure you make it explicitly clear that we are looking for permission to print a marketable trading card featuring the character for a game whose profits will be donated to the Wikimedia Foundation. Keep track of who all you talk to; we need to archive any permissions we receive. In fact, copy me at bobthewikipedian at gmail dot com when you email them; it'll make archival of permissions easy if they stay centralized. If they don't respond to an email, we'll have to call them or write them a letter. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for contacting you at this address, no "contact us" information or form seemed to be available on the fox web sites and this seemed the most applicable email address. I am working with the Wikipedia Trading Card Game committee and would like to create a card in honor of your show, the Simpsons. These cards are to be sold and the money given to the Wikimedia Foundation. We respectfully request explicit permission to use logos, images or other possible copyrighted materials relating to the Simpsons as a show to be printed on these cards for a commercial purpose.
Looks good to me. Not sure if it helps, but here's a copy of one I sent to Activision. It hasn't generated any response; not sure if they discarded the email as a joke or refused to answer, or whether it's really taking this long to respond, so not following my example might actually be a good idea:
Hello,
I am part of a team working on developing a trading card game based on Wikipedia to serve as a fundraising product for Wikimedia. We are considering including a trading card that features either a logo or screenshot from the video game Call of Duty: Black Ops. The inclusion of this trading card in the game would serve as excellent product placement with a projected audience being a small percentage of Wikipedia's countless editors.
Before we can include this card in the game, however, we would like to obtain permission to print this content on our cards. All profits beyond the cost of producing the game would be donated to Wikimedia Foundation.
That'd be the first method we can try. We need permission from whoever holds the copyright on the Simpsons franchise. Make sure you make it explicitly clear that we are looking for permission to print a marketable trading card featuring the character for a game whose profits will be donated to the Wikimedia Foundation. Keep track of who all you talk to; we need to archive any permissions we receive. In fact, copy me at bobthewikipedian at gmail dot com when you email them; it'll make archival of permissions easy if they stay centralized. If they don't respond to an email, we'll have to call them or write them a letter. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for contacting you at this address, no "contact us" information or form seemed to be available on the fox web sites and this seemed the most applicable email address. I am working with the Wikipedia Trading Card Game committee and would like to create a card in honor of your show, the Simpsons. These cards are to be sold and the money given to the Wikimedia Foundation. We respectfully request explicit permission to use logos, images or other possible copyrighted materials relating to the Simpsons as a show to be printed on these cards for a commercial purpose.
Looks good to me. Not sure if it helps, but here's a copy of one I sent to Activision. It hasn't generated any response; not sure if they discarded the email as a joke or refused to answer, or whether it's really taking this long to respond, so not following my example might actually be a good idea:
Hello,
I am part of a team working on developing a trading card game based on Wikipedia to serve as a fundraising product for Wikimedia. We are considering including a trading card that features either a logo or screenshot from the video game Call of Duty: Black Ops. The inclusion of this trading card in the game would serve as excellent product placement with a projected audience being a small percentage of Wikipedia's countless editors.
Before we can include this card in the game, however, we would like to obtain permission to print this content on our cards. All profits beyond the cost of producing the game would be donated to Wikimedia Foundation.
That'd be the first method we can try. We need permission from whoever holds the copyright on the Simpsons franchise. Make sure you make it explicitly clear that we are looking for permission to print a marketable trading card featuring the character for a game whose profits will be donated to the Wikimedia Foundation. Keep track of who all you talk to; we need to archive any permissions we receive. In fact, copy me at bobthewikipedian at gmail dot com when you email them; it'll make archival of permissions easy if they stay centralized. If they don't respond to an email, we'll have to call them or write them a letter. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for contacting you at this address, no "contact us" information or form seemed to be available on the fox web sites and this seemed the most applicable email address. I am working with the Wikipedia Trading Card Game committee and would like to create a card in honor of your show, the Simpsons. These cards are to be sold and the money given to the Wikimedia Foundation. We respectfully request explicit permission to use logos, images or other possible copyrighted materials relating to the Simpsons as a show to be printed on these cards for a commercial purpose.
Looks good to me. Not sure if it helps, but here's a copy of one I sent to Activision. It hasn't generated any response; not sure if they discarded the email as a joke or refused to answer, or whether it's really taking this long to respond, so not following my example might actually be a good idea:
Hello,
I am part of a team working on developing a trading card game based on Wikipedia to serve as a fundraising product for Wikimedia. We are considering including a trading card that features either a logo or screenshot from the video game Call of Duty: Black Ops. The inclusion of this trading card in the game would serve as excellent product placement with a projected audience being a small percentage of Wikipedia's countless editors.
Before we can include this card in the game, however, we would like to obtain permission to print this content on our cards. All profits beyond the cost of producing the game would be donated to Wikimedia Foundation.
That'd be the first method we can try. We need permission from whoever holds the copyright on the Simpsons franchise. Make sure you make it explicitly clear that we are looking for permission to print a marketable trading card featuring the character for a game whose profits will be donated to the Wikimedia Foundation. Keep track of who all you talk to; we need to archive any permissions we receive. In fact, copy me at bobthewikipedian at gmail dot com when you email them; it'll make archival of permissions easy if they stay centralized. If they don't respond to an email, we'll have to call them or write them a letter. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for contacting you at this address, no "contact us" information or form seemed to be available on the fox web sites and this seemed the most applicable email address. I am working with the Wikipedia Trading Card Game committee and would like to create a card in honor of your show, the Simpsons. These cards are to be sold and the money given to the Wikimedia Foundation. We respectfully request explicit permission to use logos, images or other possible copyrighted materials relating to the Simpsons as a show to be printed on these cards for a commercial purpose.
Looks good to me. Not sure if it helps, but here's a copy of one I sent to Activision. It hasn't generated any response; not sure if they discarded the email as a joke or refused to answer, or whether it's really taking this long to respond, so not following my example might actually be a good idea:
Hello,
I am part of a team working on developing a trading card game based on Wikipedia to serve as a fundraising product for Wikimedia. We are considering including a trading card that features either a logo or screenshot from the video game Call of Duty: Black Ops. The inclusion of this trading card in the game would serve as excellent product placement with a projected audience being a small percentage of Wikipedia's countless editors.
Before we can include this card in the game, however, we would like to obtain permission to print this content on our cards. All profits beyond the cost of producing the game would be donated to Wikimedia Foundation.
That'd be the first method we can try. We need permission from whoever holds the copyright on the Simpsons franchise. Make sure you make it explicitly clear that we are looking for permission to print a marketable trading card featuring the character for a game whose profits will be donated to the Wikimedia Foundation. Keep track of who all you talk to; we need to archive any permissions we receive. In fact, copy me at bobthewikipedian at gmail dot com when you email them; it'll make archival of permissions easy if they stay centralized. If they don't respond to an email, we'll have to call them or write them a letter. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for contacting you at this address, no "contact us" information or form seemed to be available on the fox web sites and this seemed the most applicable email address. I am working with the Wikipedia Trading Card Game committee and would like to create a card in honor of your show, the Simpsons. These cards are to be sold and the money given to the Wikimedia Foundation. We respectfully request explicit permission to use logos, images or other possible copyrighted materials relating to the Simpsons as a show to be printed on these cards for a commercial purpose.
Looks good to me. Not sure if it helps, but here's a copy of one I sent to Activision. It hasn't generated any response; not sure if they discarded the email as a joke or refused to answer, or whether it's really taking this long to respond, so not following my example might actually be a good idea:
Hello,
I am part of a team working on developing a trading card game based on Wikipedia to serve as a fundraising product for Wikimedia. We are considering including a trading card that features either a logo or screenshot from the video game Call of Duty: Black Ops. The inclusion of this trading card in the game would serve as excellent product placement with a projected audience being a small percentage of Wikipedia's countless editors.
Before we can include this card in the game, however, we would like to obtain permission to print this content on our cards. All profits beyond the cost of producing the game would be donated to Wikimedia Foundation.
That'd be the first method we can try. We need permission from whoever holds the copyright on the Simpsons franchise. Make sure you make it explicitly clear that we are looking for permission to print a marketable trading card featuring the character for a game whose profits will be donated to the Wikimedia Foundation. Keep track of who all you talk to; we need to archive any permissions we receive. In fact, copy me at bobthewikipedian at gmail dot com when you email them; it'll make archival of permissions easy if they stay centralized. If they don't respond to an email, we'll have to call them or write them a letter. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for contacting you at this address, no "contact us" information or form seemed to be available on the fox web sites and this seemed the most applicable email address. I am working with the Wikipedia Trading Card Game committee and would like to create a card in honor of your show, the Simpsons. These cards are to be sold and the money given to the Wikimedia Foundation. We respectfully request explicit permission to use logos, images or other possible copyrighted materials relating to the Simpsons as a show to be printed on these cards for a commercial purpose.
Looks good to me. Not sure if it helps, but here's a copy of one I sent to Activision. It hasn't generated any response; not sure if they discarded the email as a joke or refused to answer, or whether it's really taking this long to respond, so not following my example might actually be a good idea:
Hello,
I am part of a team working on developing a trading card game based on Wikipedia to serve as a fundraising product for Wikimedia. We are considering including a trading card that features either a logo or screenshot from the video game Call of Duty: Black Ops. The inclusion of this trading card in the game would serve as excellent product placement with a projected audience being a small percentage of Wikipedia's countless editors.
Before we can include this card in the game, however, we would like to obtain permission to print this content on our cards. All profits beyond the cost of producing the game would be donated to Wikimedia Foundation.
That'd be the first method we can try. We need permission from whoever holds the copyright on the Simpsons franchise. Make sure you make it explicitly clear that we are looking for permission to print a marketable trading card featuring the character for a game whose profits will be donated to the Wikimedia Foundation. Keep track of who all you talk to; we need to archive any permissions we receive. In fact, copy me at bobthewikipedian at gmail dot com when you email them; it'll make archival of permissions easy if they stay centralized. If they don't respond to an email, we'll have to call them or write them a letter. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for contacting you at this address, no "contact us" information or form seemed to be available on the fox web sites and this seemed the most applicable email address. I am working with the Wikipedia Trading Card Game committee and would like to create a card in honor of your show, the Simpsons. These cards are to be sold and the money given to the Wikimedia Foundation. We respectfully request explicit permission to use logos, images or other possible copyrighted materials relating to the Simpsons as a show to be printed on these cards for a commercial purpose.
Looks good to me. Not sure if it helps, but here's a copy of one I sent to Activision. It hasn't generated any response; not sure if they discarded the email as a joke or refused to answer, or whether it's really taking this long to respond, so not following my example might actually be a good idea:
Hello,
I am part of a team working on developing a trading card game based on Wikipedia to serve as a fundraising product for Wikimedia. We are considering including a trading card that features either a logo or screenshot from the video game Call of Duty: Black Ops. The inclusion of this trading card in the game would serve as excellent product placement with a projected audience being a small percentage of Wikipedia's countless editors.
Before we can include this card in the game, however, we would like to obtain permission to print this content on our cards. All profits beyond the cost of producing the game would be donated to Wikimedia Foundation.
That'd be the first method we can try. We need permission from whoever holds the copyright on the Simpsons franchise. Make sure you make it explicitly clear that we are looking for permission to print a marketable trading card featuring the character for a game whose profits will be donated to the Wikimedia Foundation. Keep track of who all you talk to; we need to archive any permissions we receive. In fact, copy me at bobthewikipedian at gmail dot com when you email them; it'll make archival of permissions easy if they stay centralized. If they don't respond to an email, we'll have to call them or write them a letter. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for contacting you at this address, no "contact us" information or form seemed to be available on the fox web sites and this seemed the most applicable email address. I am working with the Wikipedia Trading Card Game committee and would like to create a card in honor of your show, the Simpsons. These cards are to be sold and the money given to the Wikimedia Foundation. We respectfully request explicit permission to use logos, images or other possible copyrighted materials relating to the Simpsons as a show to be printed on these cards for a commercial purpose.
Looks good to me. Not sure if it helps, but here's a copy of one I sent to Activision. It hasn't generated any response; not sure if they discarded the email as a joke or refused to answer, or whether it's really taking this long to respond, so not following my example might actually be a good idea:
Hello,
I am part of a team working on developing a trading card game based on Wikipedia to serve as a fundraising product for Wikimedia. We are considering including a trading card that features either a logo or screenshot from the video game Call of Duty: Black Ops. The inclusion of this trading card in the game would serve as excellent product placement with a projected audience being a small percentage of Wikipedia's countless editors.
Before we can include this card in the game, however, we would like to obtain permission to print this content on our cards. All profits beyond the cost of producing the game would be donated to Wikimedia Foundation.
That'd be the first method we can try. We need permission from whoever holds the copyright on the Simpsons franchise. Make sure you make it explicitly clear that we are looking for permission to print a marketable trading card featuring the character for a game whose profits will be donated to the Wikimedia Foundation. Keep track of who all you talk to; we need to archive any permissions we receive. In fact, copy me at bobthewikipedian at gmail dot com when you email them; it'll make archival of permissions easy if they stay centralized. If they don't respond to an email, we'll have to call them or write them a letter. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for contacting you at this address, no "contact us" information or form seemed to be available on the fox web sites and this seemed the most applicable email address. I am working with the Wikipedia Trading Card Game committee and would like to create a card in honor of your show, the Simpsons. These cards are to be sold and the money given to the Wikimedia Foundation. We respectfully request explicit permission to use logos, images or other possible copyrighted materials relating to the Simpsons as a show to be printed on these cards for a commercial purpose.
Looks good to me. Not sure if it helps, but here's a copy of one I sent to Activision. It hasn't generated any response; not sure if they discarded the email as a joke or refused to answer, or whether it's really taking this long to respond, so not following my example might actually be a good idea:
Hello,
I am part of a team working on developing a trading card game based on Wikipedia to serve as a fundraising product for Wikimedia. We are considering including a trading card that features either a logo or screenshot from the video game Call of Duty: Black Ops. The inclusion of this trading card in the game would serve as excellent product placement with a projected audience being a small percentage of Wikipedia's countless editors.
Before we can include this card in the game, however, we would like to obtain permission to print this content on our cards. All profits beyond the cost of producing the game would be donated to Wikimedia Foundation.
That'd be the first method we can try. We need permission from whoever holds the copyright on the Simpsons franchise. Make sure you make it explicitly clear that we are looking for permission to print a marketable trading card featuring the character for a game whose profits will be donated to the Wikimedia Foundation. Keep track of who all you talk to; we need to archive any permissions we receive. In fact, copy me at bobthewikipedian at gmail dot com when you email them; it'll make archival of permissions easy if they stay centralized. If they don't respond to an email, we'll have to call them or write them a letter. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for contacting you at this address, no "contact us" information or form seemed to be available on the fox web sites and this seemed the most applicable email address. I am working with the Wikipedia Trading Card Game committee and would like to create a card in honor of your show, the Simpsons. These cards are to be sold and the money given to the Wikimedia Foundation. We respectfully request explicit permission to use logos, images or other possible copyrighted materials relating to the Simpsons as a show to be printed on these cards for a commercial purpose.
Looks good to me. Not sure if it helps, but here's a copy of one I sent to Activision. It hasn't generated any response; not sure if they discarded the email as a joke or refused to answer, or whether it's really taking this long to respond, so not following my example might actually be a good idea:
Hello,
I am part of a team working on developing a trading card game based on Wikipedia to serve as a fundraising product for Wikimedia. We are considering including a trading card that features either a logo or screenshot from the video game Call of Duty: Black Ops. The inclusion of this trading card in the game would serve as excellent product placement with a projected audience being a small percentage of Wikipedia's countless editors.
Before we can include this card in the game, however, we would like to obtain permission to print this content on our cards. All profits beyond the cost of producing the game would be donated to Wikimedia Foundation.
That'd be the first method we can try. We need permission from whoever holds the copyright on the Simpsons franchise. Make sure you make it explicitly clear that we are looking for permission to print a marketable trading card featuring the character for a game whose profits will be donated to the Wikimedia Foundation. Keep track of who all you talk to; we need to archive any permissions we receive. In fact, copy me at bobthewikipedian at gmail dot com when you email them; it'll make archival of permissions easy if they stay centralized. If they don't respond to an email, we'll have to call them or write them a letter. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for contacting you at this address, no "contact us" information or form seemed to be available on the fox web sites and this seemed the most applicable email address. I am working with the Wikipedia Trading Card Game committee and would like to create a card in honor of your show, the Simpsons. These cards are to be sold and the money given to the Wikimedia Foundation. We respectfully request explicit permission to use logos, images or other possible copyrighted materials relating to the Simpsons as a show to be printed on these cards for a commercial purpose.
Looks good to me. Not sure if it helps, but here's a copy of one I sent to Activision. It hasn't generated any response; not sure if they discarded the email as a joke or refused to answer, or whether it's really taking this long to respond, so not following my example might actually be a good idea:
Hello,
I am part of a team working on developing a trading card game based on Wikipedia to serve as a fundraising product for Wikimedia. We are considering including a trading card that features either a logo or screenshot from the video game Call of Duty: Black Ops. The inclusion of this trading card in the game would serve as excellent product placement with a projected audience being a small percentage of Wikipedia's countless editors.
Before we can include this card in the game, however, we would like to obtain permission to print this content on our cards. All profits beyond the cost of producing the game would be donated to Wikimedia Foundation.
That'd be the first method we can try. We need permission from whoever holds the copyright on the Simpsons franchise. Make sure you make it explicitly clear that we are looking for permission to print a marketable trading card featuring the character for a game whose profits will be donated to the Wikimedia Foundation. Keep track of who all you talk to; we need to archive any permissions we receive. In fact, copy me at bobthewikipedian at gmail dot com when you email them; it'll make archival of permissions easy if they stay centralized. If they don't respond to an email, we'll have to call them or write them a letter. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for contacting you at this address, no "contact us" information or form seemed to be available on the fox web sites and this seemed the most applicable email address. I am working with the Wikipedia Trading Card Game committee and would like to create a card in honor of your show, the Simpsons. These cards are to be sold and the money given to the Wikimedia Foundation. We respectfully request explicit permission to use logos, images or other possible copyrighted materials relating to the Simpsons as a show to be printed on these cards for a commercial purpose.
Looks good to me. Not sure if it helps, but here's a copy of one I sent to Activision. It hasn't generated any response; not sure if they discarded the email as a joke or refused to answer, or whether it's really taking this long to respond, so not following my example might actually be a good idea:
Hello,
I am part of a team working on developing a trading card game based on Wikipedia to serve as a fundraising product for Wikimedia. We are considering including a trading card that features either a logo or screenshot from the video game Call of Duty: Black Ops. The inclusion of this trading card in the game would serve as excellent product placement with a projected audience being a small percentage of Wikipedia's countless editors.
Before we can include this card in the game, however, we would like to obtain permission to print this content on our cards. All profits beyond the cost of producing the game would be donated to Wikimedia Foundation.
Down the John with ye card! —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 07:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)#ifeq:Wikipedia||display: none;}}background-color: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-subtle, #c8ccd1); {{===Comments====[reply]
Eh....I was gonna say yeah, but actually, yes, pointless. This card could be used as a sacrificial card for the exact same purpose. It'd be better to come up with some other anonymous-level edit; that way the card has an added function. (Also-- anon-level edits are required in order for an anon to sacrifice them, so keep in mind that we need to have lots of anon-level edit cards). Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I add this to the rejected cards page, I'd like to point this out: if it can't do anything else, you won't feel any guilt about wasting a card or not doing something you could have otherwise done. It's kind of a "filler edit" to force you to use it for this specific purpose. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 08:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a waste of a card; I'm sure that many people will think "Why did they make a card that does what can be done with any card? Those people are idiotic." That is definitely what I would be thinking. People could also think something along the lines of "What? That's what all of the cards do... Am I missing something? Did I misread the rules? I AM SO CONFUSED!!!!" Either one of those would be undesirable, I would think. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi's got a good point-- it'd be confusing to stick a card like that in a starter set, and pointless to put in a foil pack, as no one in his right mind would add it to his deck. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)#ifeq:Wikipedia||display: none;}}background-color: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-subtle, #c8ccd1); {{===Comments====[reply]
Eh....I was gonna say yeah, but actually, yes, pointless. This card could be used as a sacrificial card for the exact same purpose. It'd be better to come up with some other anonymous-level edit; that way the card has an added function. (Also-- anon-level edits are required in order for an anon to sacrifice them, so keep in mind that we need to have lots of anon-level edit cards). Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I add this to the rejected cards page, I'd like to point this out: if it can't do anything else, you won't feel any guilt about wasting a card or not doing something you could have otherwise done. It's kind of a "filler edit" to force you to use it for this specific purpose. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 08:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a waste of a card; I'm sure that many people will think "Why did they make a card that does what can be done with any card? Those people are idiotic." That is definitely what I would be thinking. People could also think something along the lines of "What? That's what all of the cards do... Am I missing something? Did I misread the rules? I AM SO CONFUSED!!!!" Either one of those would be undesirable, I would think. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi's got a good point-- it'd be confusing to stick a card like that in a starter set, and pointless to put in a foil pack, as no one in his right mind would add it to his deck. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)#switch:[reply]
left = margin:0.2em 0.5em 0.2em 0; width:{{===Comments====
Eh....I was gonna say yeah, but actually, yes, pointless. This card could be used as a sacrificial card for the exact same purpose. It'd be better to come up with some other anonymous-level edit; that way the card has an added function. (Also-- anon-level edits are required in order for an anon to sacrifice them, so keep in mind that we need to have lots of anon-level edit cards). Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I add this to the rejected cards page, I'd like to point this out: if it can't do anything else, you won't feel any guilt about wasting a card or not doing something you could have otherwise done. It's kind of a "filler edit" to force you to use it for this specific purpose. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 08:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a waste of a card; I'm sure that many people will think "Why did they make a card that does what can be done with any card? Those people are idiotic." That is definitely what I would be thinking. People could also think something along the lines of "What? That's what all of the cards do... Am I missing something? Did I misread the rules? I AM SO CONFUSED!!!!" Either one of those would be undesirable, I would think. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi's got a good point-- it'd be confusing to stick a card like that in a starter set, and pointless to put in a foil pack, as no one in his right mind would add it to his deck. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)#if:|{{{width}}}|auto}}; float: left; clear: left[reply]
right = margin:0.2em 0 0.2em 0.5em; width:{{===Comments====
Eh....I was gonna say yeah, but actually, yes, pointless. This card could be used as a sacrificial card for the exact same purpose. It'd be better to come up with some other anonymous-level edit; that way the card has an added function. (Also-- anon-level edits are required in order for an anon to sacrifice them, so keep in mind that we need to have lots of anon-level edit cards). Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I add this to the rejected cards page, I'd like to point this out: if it can't do anything else, you won't feel any guilt about wasting a card or not doing something you could have otherwise done. It's kind of a "filler edit" to force you to use it for this specific purpose. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 08:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a waste of a card; I'm sure that many people will think "Why did they make a card that does what can be done with any card? Those people are idiotic." That is definitely what I would be thinking. People could also think something along the lines of "What? That's what all of the cards do... Am I missing something? Did I misread the rules? I AM SO CONFUSED!!!!" Either one of those would be undesirable, I would think. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi's got a good point-- it'd be confusing to stick a card like that in a starter set, and pointless to put in a foil pack, as no one in his right mind would add it to his deck. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)#if:|{{{width}}}|auto}}; float: right; clear: right[reply]
Eh....I was gonna say yeah, but actually, yes, pointless. This card could be used as a sacrificial card for the exact same purpose. It'd be better to come up with some other anonymous-level edit; that way the card has an added function. (Also-- anon-level edits are required in order for an anon to sacrifice them, so keep in mind that we need to have lots of anon-level edit cards). Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I add this to the rejected cards page, I'd like to point this out: if it can't do anything else, you won't feel any guilt about wasting a card or not doing something you could have otherwise done. It's kind of a "filler edit" to force you to use it for this specific purpose. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 08:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a waste of a card; I'm sure that many people will think "Why did they make a card that does what can be done with any card? Those people are idiotic." That is definitely what I would be thinking. People could also think something along the lines of "What? That's what all of the cards do... Am I missing something? Did I misread the rules? I AM SO CONFUSED!!!!" Either one of those would be undesirable, I would think. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi's got a good point-- it'd be confusing to stick a card like that in a starter set, and pointless to put in a foil pack, as no one in his right mind would add it to his deck. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)#if:|{{{width}}}|auto}}; clear: none[reply]
centre = margin:0.2em auto; width:{{===Comments====
Eh....I was gonna say yeah, but actually, yes, pointless. This card could be used as a sacrificial card for the exact same purpose. It'd be better to come up with some other anonymous-level edit; that way the card has an added function. (Also-- anon-level edits are required in order for an anon to sacrifice them, so keep in mind that we need to have lots of anon-level edit cards). Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I add this to the rejected cards page, I'd like to point this out: if it can't do anything else, you won't feel any guilt about wasting a card or not doing something you could have otherwise done. It's kind of a "filler edit" to force you to use it for this specific purpose. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 08:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a waste of a card; I'm sure that many people will think "Why did they make a card that does what can be done with any card? Those people are idiotic." That is definitely what I would be thinking. People could also think something along the lines of "What? That's what all of the cards do... Am I missing something? Did I misread the rules? I AM SO CONFUSED!!!!" Either one of those would be undesirable, I would think. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi's got a good point-- it'd be confusing to stick a card like that in a starter set, and pointless to put in a foil pack, as no one in his right mind would add it to his deck. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)#if:|{{{width}}}|auto}}; clear: both[reply]
#default = margin: 0.2em auto auto; width:{{===Comments====
Eh....I was gonna say yeah, but actually, yes, pointless. This card could be used as a sacrificial card for the exact same purpose. It'd be better to come up with some other anonymous-level edit; that way the card has an added function. (Also-- anon-level edits are required in order for an anon to sacrifice them, so keep in mind that we need to have lots of anon-level edit cards). Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I add this to the rejected cards page, I'd like to point this out: if it can't do anything else, you won't feel any guilt about wasting a card or not doing something you could have otherwise done. It's kind of a "filler edit" to force you to use it for this specific purpose. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 08:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a waste of a card; I'm sure that many people will think "Why did they make a card that does what can be done with any card? Those people are idiotic." That is definitely what I would be thinking. People could also think something along the lines of "What? That's what all of the cards do... Am I missing something? Did I misread the rules? I AM SO CONFUSED!!!!" Either one of those would be undesirable, I would think. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi's got a good point-- it'd be confusing to stick a card like that in a starter set, and pointless to put in a foil pack, as no one in his right mind would add it to his deck. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)#if:|{{{width}}}|100%}}; clear: both[reply]
Eh....I was gonna say yeah, but actually, yes, pointless. This card could be used as a sacrificial card for the exact same purpose. It'd be better to come up with some other anonymous-level edit; that way the card has an added function. (Also-- anon-level edits are required in order for an anon to sacrifice them, so keep in mind that we need to have lots of anon-level edit cards). Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I add this to the rejected cards page, I'd like to point this out: if it can't do anything else, you won't feel any guilt about wasting a card or not doing something you could have otherwise done. It's kind of a "filler edit" to force you to use it for this specific purpose. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 08:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a waste of a card; I'm sure that many people will think "Why did they make a card that does what can be done with any card? Those people are idiotic." That is definitely what I would be thinking. People could also think something along the lines of "What? That's what all of the cards do... Am I missing something? Did I misread the rules? I AM SO CONFUSED!!!!" Either one of those would be undesirable, I would think. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi's got a good point-- it'd be confusing to stick a card like that in a starter set, and pointless to put in a foil pack, as no one in his right mind would add it to his deck. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)#if:|left|{{===Comments====[reply]
Eh....I was gonna say yeah, but actually, yes, pointless. This card could be used as a sacrificial card for the exact same purpose. It'd be better to come up with some other anonymous-level edit; that way the card has an added function. (Also-- anon-level edits are required in order for an anon to sacrifice them, so keep in mind that we need to have lots of anon-level edit cards). Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I add this to the rejected cards page, I'd like to point this out: if it can't do anything else, you won't feel any guilt about wasting a card or not doing something you could have otherwise done. It's kind of a "filler edit" to force you to use it for this specific purpose. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 08:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a waste of a card; I'm sure that many people will think "Why did they make a card that does what can be done with any card? Those people are idiotic." That is definitely what I would be thinking. People could also think something along the lines of "What? That's what all of the cards do... Am I missing something? Did I misread the rules? I AM SO CONFUSED!!!!" Either one of those would be undesirable, I would think. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi's got a good point-- it'd be confusing to stick a card like that in a starter set, and pointless to put in a foil pack, as no one in his right mind would add it to his deck. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)#if:|center|left}}}}; {{===Comments====[reply]
Eh....I was gonna say yeah, but actually, yes, pointless. This card could be used as a sacrificial card for the exact same purpose. It'd be better to come up with some other anonymous-level edit; that way the card has an added function. (Also-- anon-level edits are required in order for an anon to sacrifice them, so keep in mind that we need to have lots of anon-level edit cards). Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I add this to the rejected cards page, I'd like to point this out: if it can't do anything else, you won't feel any guilt about wasting a card or not doing something you could have otherwise done. It's kind of a "filler edit" to force you to use it for this specific purpose. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 08:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a waste of a card; I'm sure that many people will think "Why did they make a card that does what can be done with any card? Those people are idiotic." That is definitely what I would be thinking. People could also think something along the lines of "What? That's what all of the cards do... Am I missing something? Did I misread the rules? I AM SO CONFUSED!!!!" Either one of those would be undesirable, I would think. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi's got a good point-- it'd be confusing to stick a card like that in a starter set, and pointless to put in a foil pack, as no one in his right mind would add it to his deck. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)#if:|color: {{{fc}}};|}}" | <div style="display: inline; font-size: 115%; color: {{===Comments====[reply]
Eh....I was gonna say yeah, but actually, yes, pointless. This card could be used as a sacrificial card for the exact same purpose. It'd be better to come up with some other anonymous-level edit; that way the card has an added function. (Also-- anon-level edits are required in order for an anon to sacrifice them, so keep in mind that we need to have lots of anon-level edit cards). Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I add this to the rejected cards page, I'd like to point this out: if it can't do anything else, you won't feel any guilt about wasting a card or not doing something you could have otherwise done. It's kind of a "filler edit" to force you to use it for this specific purpose. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 08:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a waste of a card; I'm sure that many people will think "Why did they make a card that does what can be done with any card? Those people are idiotic." That is definitely what I would be thinking. People could also think something along the lines of "What? That's what all of the cards do... Am I missing something? Did I misread the rules? I AM SO CONFUSED!!!!" Either one of those would be undesirable, I would think. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi's got a good point-- it'd be confusing to stick a card like that in a starter set, and pointless to put in a foil pack, as no one in his right mind would add it to his deck. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)#if:|#202122|var(--color-base, #202122)}};">Extended content[reply]
Eh....I was gonna say yeah, but actually, yes, pointless. This card could be used as a sacrificial card for the exact same purpose. It'd be better to come up with some other anonymous-level edit; that way the card has an added function. (Also-- anon-level edits are required in order for an anon to sacrifice them, so keep in mind that we need to have lots of anon-level edit cards). Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I add this to the rejected cards page, I'd like to point this out: if it can't do anything else, you won't feel any guilt about wasting a card or not doing something you could have otherwise done. It's kind of a "filler edit" to force you to use it for this specific purpose. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 08:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a waste of a card; I'm sure that many people will think "Why did they make a card that does what can be done with any card? Those people are idiotic." That is definitely what I would be thinking. People could also think something along the lines of "What? That's what all of the cards do... Am I missing something? Did I misread the rules? I AM SO CONFUSED!!!!" Either one of those would be undesirable, I would think. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi's got a good point-- it'd be confusing to stick a card like that in a starter set, and pointless to put in a foil pack, as no one in his right mind would add it to his deck. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)#if:|#202122|var(--color-base, #202122)}};" |[reply]
Eh....I was gonna say yeah, but actually, yes, pointless. This card could be used as a sacrificial card for the exact same purpose. It'd be better to come up with some other anonymous-level edit; that way the card has an added function. (Also-- anon-level edits are required in order for an anon to sacrifice them, so keep in mind that we need to have lots of anon-level edit cards). Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I add this to the rejected cards page, I'd like to point this out: if it can't do anything else, you won't feel any guilt about wasting a card or not doing something you could have otherwise done. It's kind of a "filler edit" to force you to use it for this specific purpose. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 08:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a waste of a card; I'm sure that many people will think "Why did they make a card that does what can be done with any card? Those people are idiotic." That is definitely what I would be thinking. People could also think something along the lines of "What? That's what all of the cards do... Am I missing something? Did I misread the rules? I AM SO CONFUSED!!!!" Either one of those would be undesirable, I would think. ~~ Hi878(Come shout at me!)02:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant. The card's already been approved. It's awaiting a quote in the section above. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)#ifeq:Wikipedia||display: none;}}background-color: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-subtle, #c8ccd1); {{===Comments====
Redundant. The card's already been approved. It's awaiting a quote in the section above. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)#switch:[reply]
left = margin:0.2em 0.5em 0.2em 0; width:{{===Comments====
Redundant. The card's already been approved. It's awaiting a quote in the section above. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)#if:|left|{{===Comments====
Redundant. The card's already been approved. It's awaiting a quote in the section above. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)#if:|center|left}}}}; {{===Comments====
Redundant. The card's already been approved. It's awaiting a quote in the section above. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)#if:|color: {{{fc}}};|}}" | <div style="display: inline; font-size: 115%; color: {{===Comments====[reply]
Copyrighted.Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)#ifeq:Wikipedia||display: none;}}background-color: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-subtle, #c8ccd1); {{===Comments====
Why aren't you entitled to a tribute? You should be...--CanvasHat21:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted Yup, he barely made the copyright cutoff by like a couple years. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 01:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)#ifeq:Wikipedia||display: none;}}background-color: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-subtle, #c8ccd1); {{===Comments====[reply]
Actually...the appropriate cutoff would be Never featured. Whoops, I'm on WikiBreak. Back to my homework... Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 19:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)#ifeq:Wikipedia||display: none;}}background-color: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-subtle, #c8ccd1); {{===Comments====[reply]
Actually...the appropriate cutoff would be Never featured. Whoops, I'm on WikiBreak. Back to my homework... Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 19:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)#if:|color: {{{fc}}};|}}" | <div style="display: inline; font-size: 115%; color: {{===Comments====[reply]
Click two Editors Divide your Contribution into two equal parts (edits-wise). Then, trade each half for half the Contributions of the rivals beside you
One use per card. Allows a user to copyright any card they're holding for 3 turns. If the opposing user then uses the same card within 3 turns, then that opposing user's card is void. After 3 turns, the opposing user's card is no longer void, unless Fair Use is renewed.
"The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism."
"The characteristic state or condition of a living organism."
On hold until we hear back from Activision
I have an idea for another one...it's noot copyrighted...and it might work. I'm guessing that Activision simply left it...and to be completely I don't have high hopes for this one--CanvasHat 00:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Here--CanvasHat 00:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Request withdrawn#ifeq:Wikipedia||display: none;}}background-color: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-subtle, #c8ccd1); {{===Comments====
Provided we get permission from the publishers (which they might actually say yes just because it's good product placement). They might require we pay them a certain amount for each card printed with the title on it, but if it is low enough that the card can be printed and still make profit, it sounds great. That reminds me of something... I'll post it shortly on the talk page. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Declined#ifeq:Wikipedia||display: none;}}background-color: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-subtle, #c8ccd1); {{===Comments====
All three are perfectly fine to me. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 22:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Redundant. The card's already been approved. It's awaiting a quote in the section above. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)#ifeq:Wikipedia||display: none;}}background-color: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-subtle, #c8ccd1); {{===Comments====
Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 02:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Below GA rating. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 00:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
.png)
.png)
